Hello Users This question is bugging me since I started using TM 2 Alpha versions.
When the final version of TM 2 (Mac OS X version with installer) gets released, do I have to purchase a license key? Will it work for free (without any ads and pop-up reminders etc)?
Please let me know.
-- View this message in context: http://textmate.1073791.n5.nabble.com/Do-I-have-to-pay-for-the-final-TM-2-li... Sent from the textmate users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
And what happens to those of us who do not have TM 1.x license keys?
Im planning to use TM 2 to write my thesis (using LateX bundle).
-- View this message in context: http://textmate.1073791.n5.nabble.com/Do-I-have-to-pay-for-the-final-TM-2-li... Sent from the textmate users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
I want know to !
Best Regards !
-------------------------------------------
cloudsben
教外别传，不立文字，直指人心，见性成佛。
2013/7/18 kafi kkaaffii@gmail.com
And what happens to those of us who do not have TM 1.x license keys?
Im planning to use TM 2 to write my thesis (using LateX bundle).
-- View this message in context: http://textmate.1073791.n5.nabble.com/Do-I-have-to-pay-for-the-final-TM-2-li... Sent from the textmate users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
textmate mailing list textmate@lists.macromates.com http://lists.macromates.com/listinfo/textmate
Don't be cheapskates, boys!
On 18. Juli 2013 at 08:39:46, Cao Ben (cloudsben@gmail.com) wrote:
I want know to !
Best Regards !
-------------------------------------------
cloudsben
教外别传，不立文字，直指人心，见性成佛。
2013/7/18 kafi kkaaffii@gmail.com And what happens to those of us who do not have TM 1.x license keys?
Im planning to use TM 2 to write my thesis (using LateX bundle).
-- View this message in context: http://textmate.1073791.n5.nabble.com/Do-I-have-to-pay-for-the-final-TM-2-li... Sent from the textmate users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________ textmate mailing list textmate@lists.macromates.com http://lists.macromates.com/listinfo/textmate
Otherwise, We Can't Have Nice Things!
Walter
On Jul 18, 2013, at 7:40 AM, Matthias wrote:
Don't be cheapskates, boys!
On 18. Juli 2013 at 08:39:46, Cao Ben (cloudsben@gmail.com) wrote:
I want know to !
Best Regards !
cloudsben
教外别传，不立文字，直指人心，见性成佛。
2013/7/18 kafi kkaaffii@gmail.com And what happens to those of us who do not have TM 1.x license keys?
Im planning to use TM 2 to write my thesis (using LateX bundle).
-- View this message in context: http://textmate.1073791.n5.nabble.com/Do-I-have-to-pay-for-the-final-TM-2-li... Sent from the textmate users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
textmate mailing list textmate@lists.macromates.com http://lists.macromates.com/listinfo/textmate
textmate mailing list textmate@lists.macromates.com http://lists.macromates.com/listinfo/textmate
On 18 Jul 2013, at 8:10, kafi wrote:
When the final version of TM 2 (Mac OS X version with installer) gets released, do I have to purchase a license key? Will it work for free (without any ads and pop-up reminders etc)?
It is commercial software and a license can already be bought and entered in TextMate → About → Registration. Some more info here http://macromates.com/license_policy
What conditions future releases will run under (without a license) is undecided. One idea I like is to only offer the built-in updater to licensed users, OTOH I dislike the thought of having people use old builds (when newer versions exist).
Thanks for your reply.
Since TM 2 is Open Sourced, so why we (unregistered non-commercial users) need to pay for the license keys?
I do not remember paying for the license keys for any Open Sourced program in the last decade.
It seems to me that the Open Source tag is a ploy to 'attract' developers, however, keeping the revenue to the owner himself.
-- View this message in context: http://textmate.1073791.n5.nabble.com/Do-I-have-to-pay-for-the-final-TM-2-li... Sent from the textmate users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Wtf? Do you imply that just because you use TextMate for personal projects it's not worth any money? You've got a fundamentally wrong understanding of the whole open source thing, dude.
Some people put a lot of work into this piece of software and if you at least use it on a semi-regular basis you should definitely think about getting a license, no matter if you make any money with it or not. On 18. Juli 2013 at 16:13:52, kafi (kkaaffii@gmail.com) wrote:
Thanks for your reply.
Since TM 2 is Open Sourced, so why we (unregistered non-commercial users) need to pay for the license keys?
I do not remember paying for the license keys for any Open Sourced program in the last decade.
It seems to me that the Open Source tag is a ploy to 'attract' developers, however, keeping the revenue to the owner himself.
-- View this message in context: http://textmate.1073791.n5.nabble.com/Do-I-have-to-pay-for-the-final-TM-2-li... Sent from the textmate users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________ textmate mailing list textmate@lists.macromates.com http://lists.macromates.com/listinfo/textmate
Just because Im using an open source software does not mean I need to pay for it. I have been using Open Office for personal projects for the last couple of years without paying anything.
Android, CHROME, Eclipse, GIMP, TrueCrypt, Open Office, LWJGL, and hundreds of other popular open source projects are simply FREE.
Maybe you are implying that you are putting more works in TM than these other projects?!!
Here is the question for you, give me one example of a popular open source software, where I need to purchase license key for non-commercial personal use.
-- View this message in context: http://textmate.1073791.n5.nabble.com/Do-I-have-to-pay-for-the-final-TM-2-li... Sent from the textmate users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Does it have value to you? Then pay for it. Don't be a cheapskate. Have you *ever* donated money to an open source project? Time? Code?
No?
Then you're just a parasite. Support the projects that matter to you, one way or another, or stop whining that you're not getting something for free.
Better yet, learn the difference between 'free as in beer' and 'free as in speech'. Open source uses both philosophies, sometimes one, sometimes the other, sometimes both. Here, I'll even do the work for you, since you seem to place so little value on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratis_versus_libre
I would also put forth that of those free projects you listed... you definitely got what you paid for. (Open Office? Really? That's your example? Jeez. Bad clone of a bad office suite.)
Use TextMate, don't use it, I don't care... but for god's sake, don't whine that Allan put the source code out there for you to modify to fit your own needs, it just looks ridiculous.
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 12:03 PM, kafi kkaaffii@gmail.com wrote:
Just because Im using an open source software does not mean I need to pay for it. I have been using Open Office for personal projects for the last couple of years without paying anything.
Android, CHROME, Eclipse, GIMP, TrueCrypt, Open Office, LWJGL, and hundreds of other popular open source projects are simply FREE.
Maybe you are implying that you are putting more works in TM than these other projects?!!
Here is the question for you, give me one example of a popular open source software, where I need to purchase license key for non-commercial personal use.
-- View this message in context: http://textmate.1073791.n5.nabble.com/Do-I-have-to-pay-for-the-final-TM-2-li... Sent from the textmate users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
textmate mailing list textmate@lists.macromates.com http://lists.macromates.com/listinfo/textmate
People here seems not be able to discuss without calling names.
Smith, mind your language. Do not call names. You are calling me parasite, but you have no manners.
Ive donated money and participated with code and time (forum) in several open source projects. Do not talk supposing stuff that you have no knowledge about.
You just picked Open Office? What about Android, Chrome, GIMP? Not convenient for your argument?
I have asked a simple question. Do I need to pay for the license of TM 2 for non-commercial personal use?
And, give me one example of a popular open source software, where I need to purchase license key for non-commercial personal use.
-- View this message in context: http://textmate.1073791.n5.nabble.com/Do-I-have-to-pay-for-the-final-TM-2-li... Sent from the textmate users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Actually, I said that *if* you had not contributed, *then* you, (or anyone else IMO) would be a parasite.
You say you have contributed. Awesome! You're not a parasite! Huzzah! Thank you for your contributions. Please continue to do so.
Conditional logic was important to understanding that flow. I thought it was crystal clear, but apparently not. Apologies for a lack of clarity in a too-quickly typed response.
I'm not a fan of Android in the forms that it ends up in the hands of consumers (and it is hardly a community effort), and think GIMP is horridly unusable. Chrome is a nice basic browser, in a field of free browsers, open *and* closed source. I can continue down the list of the majority of open source software, and pick them apart as bad examples of coding, design, or both, but I really thought calling out Open Office was sufficient as a poster child example. (Don't get me started on the mess that is Eclipse...)
I am absolutely baffled at the resistance to paying for quality products, is all. If it is worth something to you, contribute in some way. I don't see how it can be otherwise, and have any expectation of the continuation of quality products that are not artificially propped up by corporate interests in an attempt to vacuously ride a wave of naive grassroots sentiment.
There is a clear-cut method for contributing to TM2: a license fee. One that is, really, more than fair IMO, and I am happy to do so. Also, as I understand it, other options for code contributors, etc, are being considered. I find this to be more than acceptable. You may not, and that's your decision to use or not use the product based on that. Personally, I find an individual railing against an open source license that requires certain things of them, such as a minor fee, to be of little difference than a corporation railing against the GPL requiring them to release modified code. Both are ways of ensuring contribution back to the product and the product's community. Perhaps it's merely a matter of perspective.
Ken: I agree, but I found it more than a little repugnant for kafi to wander in and accuse Allan of wanting to " 'attract' developers, however, keeping the revenue". Next time I'll remember that Allan is a grown man who can defend himself, generally with more class and style than I wield.
Apologies to all for my part in this bit of useless drahma.
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 12:27 PM, kafi kkaaffii@gmail.com wrote:
People here seems not be able to discuss without calling names.
Smith, mind your language. Do not call names. You are calling me parasite, but you have no manners.
Ive donated money and participated with code and time (forum) in several open source projects. Do not talk supposing stuff that you have no knowledge about.
You just picked Open Office? What about Android, Chrome, GIMP? Not convenient for your argument?
I have asked a simple question. Do I need to pay for the license of TM 2 for non-commercial personal use?
And, give me one example of a popular open source software, where I need to purchase license key for non-commercial personal use.
-- View this message in context: http://textmate.1073791.n5.nabble.com/Do-I-have-to-pay-for-the-final-TM-2-li... Sent from the textmate users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
textmate mailing list textmate@lists.macromates.com http://lists.macromates.com/listinfo/textmate
Open source software should be free for non-commercial personal use. As I do not see any other open source software (except TM 2) that demands license.
Its quite apparent from your writing that you ve no manners. Your apology stinks.
In your (SNOBBY) opinion, except TM 2 every other open source efforts are bad examples of coding, design etc! This is outrageous and voids any other reasoning in your post.
Since 'ONLY' TM 2 is a QUALITY 'open-source' product (its still in alpha BTW), you are persuading me to pay for it (like many other members here) by calling me names.
According to your understanding, the users should be forced to contribute in the 'Open Source' TM 2 by paying for it!! Really???? What about the free option that an Open source project warrants?
-- View this message in context: http://textmate.1073791.n5.nabble.com/Do-I-have-to-pay-for-the-final-TM-2-li... Sent from the textmate users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Hi kafi,
A few corrections are in order:
Open source software should be free for non-commercial personal use. As I do not see any other open source software (except TM 2) that demands license.
I don't understand why you say this, because is not true.
All software have licenses, even open source.
Most open source licenses state that you don't have to pay if you credit the author and every addition you make to your version of the software is released also as open source with the same license. Most of them can be used for personal and commercial work, but some don't.
Check a few open source licenses if you think I'm being picky: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_software_licenses.
cheers -- jm
Joao Mesquita wrote
Most open source licenses state that you don't have to pay if you credit the author and every addition you make to your version of the software is released also as open source with the same license. Most of them can be used for personal and commercial work, but some don't.
Crediting the author and making my version of the future software to bear the same license are great things. In your link, the only software that I see listed in the Non-free software license category is Microsoft Reference License.
As I said I do not see any other open source software except TM 2 that demands the purchase of a license.
-- View this message in context: http://textmate.1073791.n5.nabble.com/Do-I-have-to-pay-for-the-final-TM-2-li... Sent from the textmate users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Hi kafi,
I got it. You are not using the word "license" in the correct way.
I'm done with this discussion.
cheers -- jm
On Jul 18, 2013, at 11:03 PM, kafi kkaaffii@gmail.com wrote:
Joao Mesquita wrote
Most open source licenses state that you don't have to pay if you credit the author and every addition you make to your version of the software is released also as open source with the same license. Most of them can be used for personal and commercial work, but some don't.
Crediting the author and making my version of the future software to bear the same license are great things. In your link, the only software that I see listed in the Non-free software license category is Microsoft Reference License.
As I said I do not see any other open source software except TM 2 that demands the purchase of a license.
-- View this message in context: http://textmate.1073791.n5.nabble.com/Do-I-have-to-pay-for-the-final-TM-2-li... Sent from the textmate users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
textmate mailing list textmate@lists.macromates.com http://lists.macromates.com/listinfo/textmate
Joao Mesquita wrote
Hi kafi,
I got it. You are not using the word "license" in the correct way.
I'm done with this discussion.
cheers -- jm
It does not matter if the word license was used in incorrect way (for once), Im happy that you got my point!
-- View this message in context: http://textmate.1073791.n5.nabble.com/Do-I-have-to-pay-for-the-final-TM-2-li... Sent from the textmate users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Hi kafi,
Just have to add this
That's two sentences but I'm really meant just one thing. I think you are not using the word license in the correct way.
In no way you should think that I'm agreeing with you. It's the opposite. I'm not.
Now, I'm done.
cheers -- jm
On Jul 18, 2013, at 11:14 PM, kafi kkaaffii@gmail.com wrote:
Joao Mesquita wrote
Hi kafi,
I got it. You are not using the word "license" in the correct way.
I'm done with this discussion.
cheers -- jm
It does not matter if the word license was used in incorrect way (for once), Im happy that you got my point!
-- View this message in context: http://textmate.1073791.n5.nabble.com/Do-I-have-to-pay-for-the-final-TM-2-li... Sent from the textmate users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
textmate mailing list textmate@lists.macromates.com http://lists.macromates.com/listinfo/textmate
Joao Mesquita wrote
That's two sentences but I'm really meant just one thing. I think you are not using the word license in the correct way.
In no way you should think that I'm agreeing with you. It's the opposite. I'm not.
Just because for once I used the word license in a wrong way that does not void my arguments. It seems you want to disagree with me because of a grammatical mistake. Kudos to you!!!
Really, believe me when I say this, you are better off this thread.
-- View this message in context: http://textmate.1073791.n5.nabble.com/Do-I-have-to-pay-for-the-final-TM-2-li... Sent from the textmate users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Hi kafi,
It is not a grammatical mistake it is a conceptual one.
I am sorry, I'm a teacher so I have this urge to help people understand stuff, sometimes even if they don't want to. That's the case right here.
cheers -- jm
On Jul 18, 2013, at 11:27 PM, kafi kkaaffii@gmail.com wrote:
Joao Mesquita wrote
That's two sentences but I'm really meant just one thing. I think you are not using the word license in the correct way.
In no way you should think that I'm agreeing with you. It's the opposite. I'm not.
Just because for once I used the word license in a wrong way that does not void my arguments. It seems you want to disagree with me because of a grammatical mistake. Kudos to you!!!
Really, believe me when I say this, you are better off this thread.
-- View this message in context: http://textmate.1073791.n5.nabble.com/Do-I-have-to-pay-for-the-final-TM-2-li... Sent from the textmate users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
textmate mailing list textmate@lists.macromates.com http://lists.macromates.com/listinfo/textmate
I'd say we stop feeding the troll.
For whatever its worth, I'll happily pay for TM, open source or not, its an invaluable tool for me and worth the license fee. Perhaps I'm just a sucker.
On Jul 18, 2013, at 3:37 PM, João Mesquita joao@nogordio.com wrote:
Hi kafi,
It is not a grammatical mistake it is a conceptual one.
I am sorry, I'm a teacher so I have this urge to help people understand stuff, sometimes even if they don't want to. That's the case right here.
cheers -- jm
On Jul 18, 2013, at 11:27 PM, kafi kkaaffii@gmail.com wrote:
Joao Mesquita wrote
That's two sentences but I'm really meant just one thing. I think you are not using the word license in the correct way.
In no way you should think that I'm agreeing with you. It's the opposite. I'm not.
Just because for once I used the word license in a wrong way that does not void my arguments. It seems you want to disagree with me because of a grammatical mistake. Kudos to you!!!
Really, believe me when I say this, you are better off this thread.
-- View this message in context: http://textmate.1073791.n5.nabble.com/Do-I-have-to-pay-for-the-final-TM-2-li... Sent from the textmate users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
textmate mailing list textmate@lists.macromates.com http://lists.macromates.com/listinfo/textmate
textmate mailing list textmate@lists.macromates.com http://lists.macromates.com/listinfo/textmate
I agree.
cheers -- jm
On Jul 18, 2013, at 11:42 PM, William Pickens william@pickensdesigns.com wrote:
I'd say we stop feeding the troll.
For whatever its worth, I'll happily pay for TM, open source or not, its an invaluable tool for me and worth the license fee. Perhaps I'm just a sucker.
On Jul 18, 2013, at 3:37 PM, João Mesquita joao@nogordio.com wrote:
Hi kafi,
It is not a grammatical mistake it is a conceptual one.
I am sorry, I'm a teacher so I have this urge to help people understand stuff, sometimes even if they don't want to. That's the case right here.
cheers -- jm
On Jul 18, 2013, at 11:27 PM, kafi kkaaffii@gmail.com wrote:
Joao Mesquita wrote
That's two sentences but I'm really meant just one thing. I think you are not using the word license in the correct way.
In no way you should think that I'm agreeing with you. It's the opposite. I'm not.
Just because for once I used the word license in a wrong way that does not void my arguments. It seems you want to disagree with me because of a grammatical mistake. Kudos to you!!!
Really, believe me when I say this, you are better off this thread.
-- View this message in context: http://textmate.1073791.n5.nabble.com/Do-I-have-to-pay-for-the-final-TM-2-li... Sent from the textmate users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
textmate mailing list textmate@lists.macromates.com http://lists.macromates.com/listinfo/textmate
textmate mailing list textmate@lists.macromates.com http://lists.macromates.com/listinfo/textmate
textmate mailing list textmate@lists.macromates.com http://lists.macromates.com/listinfo/textmate
Joao is not a troll but a teacher. Maybe a hairy teacher but a) there's no sufficient evidence, b) it would still not make him a troll.
Therefore can we still feed Joao?
Sent from my iPhone
On 18 Jul 2013, at 23:42, William Pickens william@pickensdesigns.com wrote:
I'd say we stop feeding the troll.
For whatever its worth, I'll happily pay for TM, open source or not, its an invaluable tool for me and worth the license fee. Perhaps I'm just a sucker.
On Jul 18, 2013, at 3:37 PM, João Mesquita joao@nogordio.com wrote:
Hi kafi,
It is not a grammatical mistake it is a conceptual one.
I am sorry, I'm a teacher so I have this urge to help people understand stuff, sometimes even if they don't want to. That's the case right here.
cheers -- jm
On Jul 18, 2013, at 11:27 PM, kafi kkaaffii@gmail.com wrote:
Joao Mesquita wrote
That's two sentences but I'm really meant just one thing. I think you are not using the word license in the correct way.
In no way you should think that I'm agreeing with you. It's the opposite. I'm not.
Just because for once I used the word license in a wrong way that does not void my arguments. It seems you want to disagree with me because of a grammatical mistake. Kudos to you!!!
Really, believe me when I say this, you are better off this thread.
-- View this message in context: http://textmate.1073791.n5.nabble.com/Do-I-have-to-pay-for-the-final-TM-2-li... Sent from the textmate users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
textmate mailing list textmate@lists.macromates.com http://lists.macromates.com/listinfo/textmate
textmate mailing list textmate@lists.macromates.com http://lists.macromates.com/listinfo/textmate
textmate mailing list textmate@lists.macromates.com http://lists.macromates.com/listinfo/textmate
Hi Jean-Baptiste,
It's true what they say: don't argue with a troll. At distance you can't tell who is the troll and who is not. ;)
cheers, -- jm
On Jul 18, 2013, at 11:48 PM, Jean-Baptiste Karageuzian karageuzian.jb@gmail.com wrote:
Joao is not a troll but a teacher. Maybe a hairy teacher but a) there's no sufficient evidence, b) it would still not make him a troll.
Therefore can we still feed Joao?
Sent from my iPhone
On 18 Jul 2013, at 23:42, William Pickens william@pickensdesigns.com wrote:
I'd say we stop feeding the troll.
For whatever its worth, I'll happily pay for TM, open source or not, its an invaluable tool for me and worth the license fee. Perhaps I'm just a sucker.
On Jul 18, 2013, at 3:37 PM, João Mesquita joao@nogordio.com wrote:
Hi kafi,
It is not a grammatical mistake it is a conceptual one.
I am sorry, I'm a teacher so I have this urge to help people understand stuff, sometimes even if they don't want to. That's the case right here.
cheers -- jm
On Jul 18, 2013, at 11:27 PM, kafi kkaaffii@gmail.com wrote:
Joao Mesquita wrote
That's two sentences but I'm really meant just one thing. I think you are not using the word license in the correct way.
In no way you should think that I'm agreeing with you. It's the opposite. I'm not.
Just because for once I used the word license in a wrong way that does not void my arguments. It seems you want to disagree with me because of a grammatical mistake. Kudos to you!!!
Really, believe me when I say this, you are better off this thread.
-- View this message in context: http://textmate.1073791.n5.nabble.com/Do-I-have-to-pay-for-the-final-TM-2-li... Sent from the textmate users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
textmate mailing list textmate@lists.macromates.com http://lists.macromates.com/listinfo/textmate
textmate mailing list textmate@lists.macromates.com http://lists.macromates.com/listinfo/textmate
textmate mailing list textmate@lists.macromates.com http://lists.macromates.com/listinfo/textmate
textmate mailing list textmate@lists.macromates.com http://lists.macromates.com/listinfo/textmate
@Joao, for what its worth, you were not the troll I was referring to. :)
On Jul 18, 2013, at 3:55 PM, João Mesquita joao@nogordio.com wrote:
Hi Jean-Baptiste,
It's true what they say: don't argue with a troll. At distance you can't tell who is the troll and who is not. ;)
cheers, -- jm
On Jul 18, 2013, at 11:48 PM, Jean-Baptiste Karageuzian karageuzian.jb@gmail.com wrote:
Joao is not a troll but a teacher. Maybe a hairy teacher but a) there's no sufficient evidence, b) it would still not make him a troll.
Therefore can we still feed Joao?
Sent from my iPhone
On 18 Jul 2013, at 23:42, William Pickens william@pickensdesigns.com wrote:
I'd say we stop feeding the troll.
For whatever its worth, I'll happily pay for TM, open source or not, its an invaluable tool for me and worth the license fee. Perhaps I'm just a sucker.
On Jul 18, 2013, at 3:37 PM, João Mesquita joao@nogordio.com wrote:
Hi kafi,
It is not a grammatical mistake it is a conceptual one.
I am sorry, I'm a teacher so I have this urge to help people understand stuff, sometimes even if they don't want to. That's the case right here.
cheers -- jm
On Jul 18, 2013, at 11:27 PM, kafi kkaaffii@gmail.com wrote:
Joao Mesquita wrote
That's two sentences but I'm really meant just one thing. I think you are not using the word license in the correct way.
In no way you should think that I'm agreeing with you. It's the opposite. I'm not.
Just because for once I used the word license in a wrong way that does not void my arguments. It seems you want to disagree with me because of a grammatical mistake. Kudos to you!!!
Really, believe me when I say this, you are better off this thread.
-- View this message in context: http://textmate.1073791.n5.nabble.com/Do-I-have-to-pay-for-the-final-TM-2-li... Sent from the textmate users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
textmate mailing list textmate@lists.macromates.com http://lists.macromates.com/listinfo/textmate
textmate mailing list textmate@lists.macromates.com http://lists.macromates.com/listinfo/textmate
textmate mailing list textmate@lists.macromates.com http://lists.macromates.com/listinfo/textmate
textmate mailing list textmate@lists.macromates.com http://lists.macromates.com/listinfo/textmate
textmate mailing list textmate@lists.macromates.com http://lists.macromates.com/listinfo/textmate
William Pickens wrote
@Joao, for what its worth, you were not the troll I was referring to. :)
Why am I not surprised. For raising a serious issue I have been called names a couple of times now. It seems its too much to expect a civilized discussion in this forum.
Kudos William, you have proven yourself to be an eligible member of this forum.
-- View this message in context: http://textmate.1073791.n5.nabble.com/Do-I-have-to-pay-for-the-final-TM-2-li... Sent from the textmate users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Unsubscribe
Sent from my iPhone
On 18 Jul 2013, at 23:48, Jean-Baptiste Karageuzian karageuzian.jb@gmail.com wrote:
Joao is not a troll but a teacher. Maybe a hairy teacher but a) there's no sufficient evidence, b) it would still not make him a troll.
Therefore can we still feed Joao?
Sent from my iPhone
On 18 Jul 2013, at 23:42, William Pickens william@pickensdesigns.com wrote:
I'd say we stop feeding the troll.
For whatever its worth, I'll happily pay for TM, open source or not, its an invaluable tool for me and worth the license fee. Perhaps I'm just a sucker.
On Jul 18, 2013, at 3:37 PM, João Mesquita joao@nogordio.com wrote:
Hi kafi,
It is not a grammatical mistake it is a conceptual one.
I am sorry, I'm a teacher so I have this urge to help people understand stuff, sometimes even if they don't want to. That's the case right here.
cheers -- jm
On Jul 18, 2013, at 11:27 PM, kafi kkaaffii@gmail.com wrote:
Joao Mesquita wrote
That's two sentences but I'm really meant just one thing. I think you are not using the word license in the correct way.
In no way you should think that I'm agreeing with you. It's the opposite. I'm not.
Just because for once I used the word license in a wrong way that does not void my arguments. It seems you want to disagree with me because of a grammatical mistake. Kudos to you!!!
Really, believe me when I say this, you are better off this thread.
-- View this message in context: http://textmate.1073791.n5.nabble.com/Do-I-have-to-pay-for-the-final-TM-2-li... Sent from the textmate users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
textmate mailing list textmate@lists.macromates.com http://lists.macromates.com/listinfo/textmate
textmate mailing list textmate@lists.macromates.com http://lists.macromates.com/listinfo/textmate
textmate mailing list textmate@lists.macromates.com http://lists.macromates.com/listinfo/textmate
textmate mailing list textmate@lists.macromates.com http://lists.macromates.com/listinfo/textmate
João Mesquita wrote
Hi kafi,
It is not a grammatical mistake it is a conceptual one.
I am sorry, I'm a teacher so I have this urge to help people understand stuff, sometimes even if they don't want to. That's the case right here.
cheers -- jm
You have proven to be an escapist teacher so far. Instead of teaching the student you are more willing to leave the class room all of the time. Haaa.
Im a PhD student (CS) in University of Toronto. I am a part time teacher and have conducted several teaching assistantship. I would be more than happy to point out your conceptual faults.
-- View this message in context: http://textmate.1073791.n5.nabble.com/Do-I-have-to-pay-for-the-final-TM-2-li... Sent from the textmate users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On 19 Jul 2013, at 0:03, kafi wrote:
As I said I do not see any other open source software except TM 2 that demands the purchase of a license.
As has already been said open != free. That I decided to make my work open (via the GPLv3) does not in any way mean I also have to give it away for free, read the article about selling software on gnu.org (the creators of the GPLv3 license I am using) if you don’t believe me.
I really don’t get what your point is. Are you saying that I cannot open the source without also making it free? Because then you are wrong, and there is plenty of proof of that.
Also, there actually is Mac and iOS software being sold for money where the source is available, but that is irrelevant for what I can or cannot do with TextMate.
Allan Odgaard-4 wrote
As has already been said open != free. Are you saying that I cannot open the source without also making it free? Because then you are wrong, and there is plenty of proof of that.
Also, there actually is Mac and iOS software being sold for money where the source is available, but that is irrelevant for what I can or cannot do with TextMate.
So, you do not intend to make TM2 free for non-commercial personal use because the license allows you so. Since, there are plenty of proof of such, could you share some names? Also, I got the part that whether such examples exist or not is irrelevant to you.
Heading off to Texshop.
-- View this message in context: http://textmate.1073791.n5.nabble.com/Do-I-have-to-pay-for-the-final-TM-2-li... Sent from the textmate users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On 19 Jul 2013, at 0:22, kafi wrote:
[…] So, you do not intend to make TM2 free for non-commercial personal use because the license allows you so.
I already replied to your first letter: http://lists.macromates.com/textmate/2013-July/036350.html
And this isn’t a case of “because the license allows it”. TextMate has always been commercial software and recently, I released the source under a license that I picked myself, and of course I picked a license that wouldn’t disallow something that I was already doing.
Since, there are plenty of proof of such, could you share some names?
I said plenty of proof of free != open — just google it!
For indie software being sold but with the source available, both Limechat and Colloquy are in the iOS app store, but started as open source projects. Growl is in the Mac app store, but also has the source availble. QuickCursor I think is now pulled from the Mac app store, but is also on GitHub, I know there are more, but really, do your own research if you need this info!
Allan Odgaard-4 wrote
I picked a license that wouldn’t disallow something that I was already doing.
Both Limechat and Colloquy are in the iOS app store, but started as open source projects. Growl is in the Mac app store, but also has the source availble. QuickCursor I think is now pulled from the Mac app store, but is also on GitHub, I know there are more ..
Limechat and Colloquy are no longer open source as they are now in the iOS app store. The vice versa is for QuickCursor.
Growl 1.3 is no longer open source. So, none of these examples are valid. Try again.
-- View this message in context: http://textmate.1073791.n5.nabble.com/Do-I-have-to-pay-for-the-final-TM-2-li... Sent from the textmate users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Read this (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html) would you?
-- Tuan Anh Tran e: me@tuananh.us (mailto:me@tuananh.us) / t: (+66) 849027417 / w: http://tuananh.org
On Friday, July 19, 2013 at 8:28 AM, kafi wrote:
Allan Odgaard-4 wrote
I picked a license that wouldn’t disallow something that I was already doing. Both Limechat and Colloquy are in the iOS app store, but started as open source projects. Growl is in the Mac app store, but also has the source availble. QuickCursor I think is now pulled from the Mac app store, but is also on GitHub, I know there are more ..
Limechat and Colloquy are no longer open source as they are now in the iOS app store. The vice versa is for QuickCursor. Growl 1.3 is no longer open source. So, none of these examples are valid. Try again. -- View this message in context: http://textmate.1073791.n5.nabble.com/Do-I-have-to-pay-for-the-final-TM-2-li... Sent from the textmate users mailing list archive at Nabble.com (http://Nabble.com). _______________________________________________ textmate mailing list textmate@lists.macromates.com (mailto:textmate@lists.macromates.com) http://lists.macromates.com/listinfo/textmate
A few points for @kafi:
1. Limechat *is* open source. Check out https://github.com/psychs/limechat 2. Have you read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.htm? 3. If you expect others to be polite to you then please show the same courtesy to them. Posting comments such as
It seems to me that the Open Source tag is a ploy to 'attract' developers, however, keeping the revenue to the owner himself.
sets a low standard of discourse that you can not later claim is unfair to you. 4. What free open source software have you created? 5. Would you donate any money to use Textmate 2?
Cheers, Leo Brewin
On 19/07/2013, at 11:28 AM, kafi kkaaffii@gmail.com wrote:
Limechat and Colloquy are no longer open source as they are now in the iOS app store. The vice versa is for QuickCursor.
Growl 1.3 is no longer open source. So, none of these examples are valid. Try again.
-- View this message in context: http://textmate.1073791.n5.nabble.com/Do-I-have-to-pay-for-the-final-TM-2-li... Sent from the textmate users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________ textmate mailing list textmate@lists.macromates.com http://lists.macromates.com/listinfo/textmate
Leo Brewin wrote
A few points for @kafi:
- Limechat *is* open source. Check out https://github.com/psychs/limechat
- Have you read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.htm?
- If you expect others to be polite to you then please show the same
courtesy to them. Posting comments such as
It seems to me that the Open Source tag is a ploy to 'attract' developers, however, keeping the revenue to the owner himself.
sets a low standard of discourse that you can not later claim is unfair to you. 4. What free open source software have you created? 5. Would you donate any money to use Textmate 2?
1. The iOS version of Limechat is not open source. 2. Yap. 3. People who have high standards are not going to be influenced by some comments. 4. Umple, LWJGL, EMMA 5. Maybe.
-- View this message in context: http://textmate.1073791.n5.nabble.com/Do-I-have-to-pay-for-the-final-TM-2-li... Sent from the textmate users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
This is getting very silly.
1. I don't know how you can conclude that Limechat is not open source when the license states
LimeChat is copyrighted free software by Satoshi Nakagawa (psychs AT limechat DOT net). You can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GPL version 2.
2. What does Yap mean? And if you have read it why are we having this discussion? 3. Having high standards allows people to insult each other? You must be joking. 4. You created UMPLE, LWJGL, EMMA? Really? 5. So if you are prepared to donate to use Textmate why is this discussion ongoing?
On 19/07/2013, at 1:24 PM, kafi kkaaffii@gmail.com wrote:
Leo Brewin wrote
A few points for @kafi:
- Limechat *is* open source. Check out https://github.com/psychs/limechat
- Have you read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.htm?
- If you expect others to be polite to you then please show the same
courtesy to them. Posting comments such as
It seems to me that the Open Source tag is a ploy to 'attract' developers, however, keeping the revenue to the owner himself.
sets a low standard of discourse that you can not later claim is unfair to you. 4. What free open source software have you created? 5. Would you donate any money to use Textmate 2?
1. The iOS version of Limechat is not open source. 2. Yap. 3. People who have high standards are not going to be influenced by some comments. 4. Umple, LWJGL, EMMA 5. Maybe.
-- View this message in context: http://textmate.1073791.n5.nabble.com/Do-I-have-to-pay-for-the-final-TM-2-li... Sent from the textmate users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________ textmate mailing list textmate@lists.macromates.com http://lists.macromates.com/listinfo/textmate
Leo Brewin wrote
This is getting very silly.
- I don't know how you can conclude that Limechat is not open source when
the license states
LimeChat is copyrighted free software by Satoshi Nakagawa (psychs AT limechat DOT net). You can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GPL version 2.
- What does Yap mean? And if you have read it why are we having this
discussion? 3. Having high standards allows people to insult each other? You must be joking. 4. You created UMPLE, LWJGL, EMMA? Really? 5. So if you are prepared to donate to use Textmate why is this discussion ongoing?
1. Try finding the iOS version of Limechat. 2. Read my posts again, maybe then you might get some idea. 3. I am not. Im the one who have been targeted and insulted. Read the posts. 4. Nope. I contributed. My bad. 5. I do not like to be forced to 'donate'. It voids the term 'donation', don't you agree?
-- View this message in context: http://textmate.1073791.n5.nabble.com/Do-I-have-to-pay-for-the-final-TM-2-li... Sent from the textmate users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Hello kafi,
The fact that not many developers/companies do this doesn't mean open-source softwares can't be commercial. You can actually find many commercial open source softwares if you really want to know.[1]
In fact, GNU embraces this if you 'actually' read it as many people including myself suggest you take a look.
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_open-source_applications
Tuan Anh Tran-2 wrote
Hello kafi,
The fact that not many developers/companies do this doesn't mean open-source softwares can't be commercial. You can actually find many commercial open source softwares if you really want to know.[1]
In fact, GNU embraces this if you 'actually' read it as many people including myself suggest you take a look.
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_open-source_applications
I agree. Thanks for your post.
-- View this message in context: http://textmate.1073791.n5.nabble.com/Do-I-have-to-pay-for-the-final-TM-2-li... Sent from the textmate users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
- Try finding the iOS version of Limechat.
https://itunes.apple.com/au/app/limechat-irc-client/id298766460?mt=8
- Read my posts again, maybe then you might get some idea.
- I am not. Im the one who have been targeted and insulted. Read the posts.
I have read your posts, why do you think I'm in this discussion? You ask for people to be kind to you but you set the tone in your opening post so stop playing the victim. You wrote
It seems to me that the Open Source tag is a ploy to 'attract' developers, however, keeping the revenue to the owner himself.
I think that is a very harsh judgement to make of Allan. He is putting in an enormous effort to produce an exceptional piece of software and you quibble over a few dollars. Where is your sense of fairness? How selfish are you? I'd suggest you'd do well to offer Allan an apology.
- I do not like to be forced to 'donate'. It voids the term 'donation',
don't you agree?
Do I agree? Absolutely not. You seem to place your (perceived) right to not pay for the use of Textmate above those of the developer to set the terms and conditions for that software. Allan's rights as the developer trumps any rights you think you might have. You have to decide if the terms set by Allan are ones that you can accept. If not, find some other software that meets your needs. There is a vast array of choices available, find one and then please leave us alone.
Leo Brewin
I have to disagree… distribution via the App Store (or any other distribution method) does not preclude a program from being open source. And according to the Colloquy development page, they're still open source (http://colloquy.info/project/wiki/Development%20Guide). The same situation is true for Growl and Limechat. If you are interested in the development of any of these, the source code is still free, and you a free to download it and build your own software from source. VLC is another example, and was re-added to the iOS App Store today, and remains open source software. The only thing that the label "open source" requires of a developer is that the SOURCE be available for the (not necessarily non-paying) user to download.
Please, prior to demanding that open source software be free, and then claiming that software is not open source if it isn't free, read the gnu.org link provided by Mr. Odgaard which defines the term 'open source'.
Dustin Wheeler mskblackbelt@me.com
Sent from my iPad
On Jul 18, 2013, at 20:28, kafi kkaaffii@gmail.com wrote:
Allan Odgaard-4 wrote
I picked a license that wouldn’t disallow something that I was already doing.
Both Limechat and Colloquy are in the iOS app store, but started as open source projects. Growl is in the Mac app store, but also has the source availble. QuickCursor I think is now pulled from the Mac app store, but is also on GitHub, I know there are more ..
Limechat and Colloquy are no longer open source as they are now in the iOS app store. The vice versa is for QuickCursor.
Growl 1.3 is no longer open source. So, none of these examples are valid. Try again.
-- View this message in context: http://textmate.1073791.n5.nabble.com/Do-I-have-to-pay-for-the-final-TM-2-li... Sent from the textmate users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Dustin Wheeler wrote
According to the Colloquy development page, they're still open source.
The same situation is true for Growl and Limechat. If you are interested in the development of any of these, the source code is still free, and you a free to download it and build your own software from source.
VLC is another example, and was re-added to the iOS App Store today, and remains open source software.
The iOS versions (commercial) of Colloquy and Limchat are not open source. Growl 1.3 is closed course (re-written).
VLC? Could not find it in the app store, so am not going to comment.
-- View this message in context: http://textmate.1073791.n5.nabble.com/Do-I-have-to-pay-for-the-final-TM-2-li... Sent from the textmate users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Here's the line from the current growl page (http://growl.info/notetodevelopers):
"Also, Growl remains Open Source Software. This page explains how to build Growl from source."
I'm not much of a coder, so I won't check if that is truly the v2.0 source linked in the page, but they seem to have a very clear statement that they're remaining open source.
As for the VLC news, here's a link to the Ars Technical article (http://arstechnica.com/apple/2013/07/vlc-media-player-returns-to-the-ios-app...). Apparently it's out in AU and NZ, should be on the US App Store tonight. Though it isn't the best example, as I believe it is a free download, even in the App Store. It's first appearance brought up the question of whether distribution via the App Store was valid for the open source license, but I guess that question was ironed out.
I guess my whole point is that "open source" doesn't mean zero payment or only available online, it just means that once you obtain the software, you may work with the source code as you please.
With that, I wish you fine people goodnight, and happy writing!
Dustin Wheeler mskblackbelt@me.com
Sent from my iPad
On Jul 18, 2013, at 22:37, kafi kkaaffii@gmail.com wrote:
Dustin Wheeler wrote
According to the Colloquy development page, they're still open source.
The same situation is true for Growl and Limechat. If you are interested in the development of any of these, the source code is still free, and you a free to download it and build your own software from source.
VLC is another example, and was re-added to the iOS App Store today, and remains open source software.
The iOS versions (commercial) of Colloquy and Limchat are not open source. Growl 1.3 is closed course (re-written).
VLC? Could not find it in the app store, so am not going to comment.
-- View this message in context: http://textmate.1073791.n5.nabble.com/Do-I-have-to-pay-for-the-final-TM-2-li... Sent from the textmate users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Dustin Wheeler wrote
As for the VLC news, .. Apparently it's out in AU and NZ, should be on the US App Store tonight. Though it isn't the best example, as I believe it is a free download, even in the App Store.
Indeed, if its free to download then its not a valid example.
-- View this message in context: http://textmate.1073791.n5.nabble.com/Do-I-have-to-pay-for-the-final-TM-2-li... Sent from the textmate users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Since you desperately want an example, here you go
Canabalt github: https://github.com/ericjohnson/canabalt-ios Canabalt iOS ($2.99): https://itunes.apple.com/en/app/canabalt/id333180061?mt=8 Canabalt Android ($2.99 I guess): https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=fishnoodle.canabalt&hl=en
Are we cool now?
Open source software should be free for non-commercial personal use. As I do not see any other open source software (except TM 2) that demands license.
Its quite apparent from your writing that you ve no manners. Your apology stinks.
In your (SNOBBY) opinion, except TM 2 every other open source efforts are bad examples of coding, design etc! This is outrageous and voids any other reasoning in your post.
Since 'ONLY' TM 2 is a QUALITY 'open-source' product (its still in alpha BTW), you are persuading me to pay for it (like many other members here) by calling me names.
According to your understanding, the users should be forced to contribute in the 'Open Source' TM 2 by paying for it!! Really???? What about the free option that an Open source project warrants?
-- View this message in context: http://textmate.1073791.n5.nabble.com/Do-I-have-to-pay-for-the-final-TM-2-li... Sent from the textmate users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Jason McC. Smith wrote
Actually, I said that *if* you had not contributed, *then* you, (or anyone else IMO) would be a parasite. ... (Don't get me started on the mess that is Eclipse...) ... There is a clear-cut method for contributing to TM2: a license fee.
Open source software should be free for non-commercial personal use. As I do not see any other open source software (except TM 2) that demands license.
Its quite apparent from your writing that you ve no manners. Your apology stinks.
In your (SNOBBY) opinion, except TM 2 every other open source efforts are bad examples of coding, design etc! This is outrageous and voids any other reasoning in your post.
Since 'ONLY' TM 2 is a QUALITY 'open-source' product (its still in alpha BTW), you are persuading me to pay for it (like many other members here) by calling me names.
According to your understanding, the users should be forced to contribute in the 'Open Source' TM 2 by paying for it!! Really???? What about the free option that an Open source project warrants?
-- View this message in context: http://textmate.1073791.n5.nabble.com/Do-I-have-to-pay-for-the-final-TM-2-li... Sent from the textmate users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
@ Jason McC. Smith I was with you until you said "I would also put forth that of those free projects you listed... you definitely got what you paid for. (Open Office? Really? That's your example? Jeez. Bad clone of a bad office suite.)" Not a nice comment. People put a lot of effort in that. They may not be as good as you think you are, but in this case, you may want to contribute to that project to make it better!
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Jason McC. Smith jason@ncpod.org wrote:
Does it have value to you? Then pay for it. Don't be a cheapskate. Have you *ever* donated money to an open source project? Time? Code?
No?
Then you're just a parasite. Support the projects that matter to you, one way or another, or stop whining that you're not getting something for free.
Better yet, learn the difference between 'free as in beer' and 'free as in speech'. Open source uses both philosophies, sometimes one, sometimes the other, sometimes both. Here, I'll even do the work for you, since you seem to place so little value on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratis_versus_libre
I would also put forth that of those free projects you listed... you definitely got what you paid for. (Open Office? Really? That's your example? Jeez. Bad clone of a bad office suite.)
Use TextMate, don't use it, I don't care... but for god's sake, don't whine that Allan put the source code out there for you to modify to fit your own needs, it just looks ridiculous.
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 12:03 PM, kafi kkaaffii@gmail.com wrote:
Just because Im using an open source software does not mean I need to pay for it. I have been using Open Office for personal projects for the last couple of years without paying anything.
Android, CHROME, Eclipse, GIMP, TrueCrypt, Open Office, LWJGL, and hundreds of other popular open source projects are simply FREE.
Maybe you are implying that you are putting more works in TM than these other projects?!!
Here is the question for you, give me one example of a popular open source software, where I need to purchase license key for non-commercial personal use.
-- View this message in context: http://textmate.1073791.n5.nabble.com/Do-I-have-to-pay-for-the-final-TM-2-li... Sent from the textmate users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
textmate mailing list textmate@lists.macromates.com http://lists.macromates.com/listinfo/textmate
textmate mailing list textmate@lists.macromates.com http://lists.macromates.com/listinfo/textmate
My bad. I find the decision to clone Office instead of striking new ground to be a disappointing one, and haven't had much luck with getting the tool to work as advertised for even basic functionality, mostly surrounding graphics, tables, and table of contents generation. (The open data format and import/exporters? Awesome fantastic necessary work. The UI? Er.) You're right, it has had a tremendous amount of effort put into it, but I consider it a bit like its inspiration: while I can have a great amount of respect for the people and talent who have contributed to it, I can also dislike the product and find it fundamentally lacking for my needs. (I don't like Office to begin with, so perhaps that's the problem.)
I do feel that many open source projects are attempting to be direct clones of commercial products, when that immense talent could be put to better use creating new innovations in the same product space, but that's neither here nor there, really, just a personal observation of disappointment.
Then something like TM2 comes along that *is* new and innovative, and it gives me hope. :) <--- this is me ending on a positive note. Yay personal growth.
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Marc Chanliau marc.chanliau@gmail.comwrote:
@ Jason McC. Smith I was with you until you said "I would also put forth that of those free projects you listed... you definitely got what you paid for. (Open Office? Really? That's your example? Jeez. Bad clone of a bad office suite.)" Not a nice comment. People put a lot of effort in that. They may not be as good as you think you are, but in this case, you may want to contribute to that project to make it better!
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Jason McC. Smith jason@ncpod.orgwrote:
Does it have value to you? Then pay for it. Don't be a cheapskate. Have you *ever* donated money to an open source project? Time? Code?
No?
Then you're just a parasite. Support the projects that matter to you, one way or another, or stop whining that you're not getting something for free.
Better yet, learn the difference between 'free as in beer' and 'free as in speech'. Open source uses both philosophies, sometimes one, sometimes the other, sometimes both. Here, I'll even do the work for you, since you seem to place so little value on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratis_versus_libre
I would also put forth that of those free projects you listed... you definitely got what you paid for. (Open Office? Really? That's your example? Jeez. Bad clone of a bad office suite.)
Use TextMate, don't use it, I don't care... but for god's sake, don't whine that Allan put the source code out there for you to modify to fit your own needs, it just looks ridiculous.
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 12:03 PM, kafi kkaaffii@gmail.com wrote:
Just because Im using an open source software does not mean I need to pay for it. I have been using Open Office for personal projects for the last couple of years without paying anything.
Android, CHROME, Eclipse, GIMP, TrueCrypt, Open Office, LWJGL, and hundreds of other popular open source projects are simply FREE.
Maybe you are implying that you are putting more works in TM than these other projects?!!
Here is the question for you, give me one example of a popular open source software, where I need to purchase license key for non-commercial personal use.
-- View this message in context: http://textmate.1073791.n5.nabble.com/Do-I-have-to-pay-for-the-final-TM-2-li... Sent from the textmate users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
textmate mailing list textmate@lists.macromates.com http://lists.macromates.com/listinfo/textmate
textmate mailing list textmate@lists.macromates.com http://lists.macromates.com/listinfo/textmate
textmate mailing list textmate@lists.macromates.com http://lists.macromates.com/listinfo/textmate
Take a look at the license agreements for the Qt cross-platform programming library. To use it commercially you must by licensing from Digia (formerly Nokia and before that Trolltech) and non-commecial use can use what is provided by the Qt-Project.
Qt is used by literally hundreds of applications including some pretty big ones such as KDE. Having to pay for a commercial license on open-source software is not new.
Here is a question for you. Why should anyone write software and give it away for you to use for free?
On Jul 18, 2013, at 12:03 PM, kafi wrote:
Just because Im using an open source software does not mean I need to pay for it. I have been using Open Office for personal projects for the last couple of years without paying anything.
Android, CHROME, Eclipse, GIMP, TrueCrypt, Open Office, LWJGL, and hundreds of other popular open source projects are simply FREE.
Maybe you are implying that you are putting more works in TM than these other projects?!!
Here is the question for you, give me one example of a popular open source software, where I need to purchase license key for non-commercial personal use.
-- View this message in context: http://textmate.1073791.n5.nabble.com/Do-I-have-to-pay-for-the-final-TM-2-li... Sent from the textmate users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
textmate mailing list textmate@lists.macromates.com http://lists.macromates.com/listinfo/textmate
Wow! So much heat and no light. The cost of TextMate is peanuts compared going out to dinner and the beneficial results are far longer lasting.
Or you could just go out an pay several hundred dollars or more for some other word processor.
My $0.02
Bob ----- "Chris Knight" cpk.stealth@gmail.com wrote:
Take a look at the license agreements for the Qt cross-platform programming library. To use it commercially you must by licensing from Digia (formerly Nokia and before that Trolltech) and non-commecial use can use what is provided by the Qt-Project.
Qt is used by literally hundreds of applications including some pretty big ones such as KDE. Having to pay for a commercial license on open-source software is not new.
Here is a question for you. Why should anyone write software and give it away for you to use for free?
On Jul 18, 2013, at 12:03 PM, kafi wrote:
Just because Im using an open source software does not mean I need
to pay for
it. I have been using Open Office for personal projects for the last
couple
of years without paying anything.
Android, CHROME, Eclipse, GIMP, TrueCrypt, Open Office, LWJGL, and
hundreds
of other popular open source projects are simply FREE.
Maybe you are implying that you are putting more works in TM than
these
other projects?!!
Here is the question for you, give me one example of a popular open
source
software, where I need to purchase license key for non-commercial
personal
use.
-- View this message in context:
http://textmate.1073791.n5.nabble.com/Do-I-have-to-pay-for-the-final-TM-2-li...
Sent from the textmate users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
textmate mailing list textmate@lists.macromates.com http://lists.macromates.com/listinfo/textmate
textmate mailing list textmate@lists.macromates.com http://lists.macromates.com/listinfo/textmate
I ve specifically said, non-commercial persoanl use, so your example does not work.
No open source software requires purchase of license for non-commerical personal usage. Try again.
-- View this message in context: http://textmate.1073791.n5.nabble.com/Do-I-have-to-pay-for-the-final-TM-2-li... Sent from the textmate users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Chris Knight wrote
Why should anyone write software and give it away for you to use for free?
Go to the project website of Android, Open Office, GIMP, Chrome, Truecrypt, 7Zip, Apache web server, Java, etc. and read why these softwares are free to use. Maybe then you will learn about a great philosophy.
-- View this message in context: http://textmate.1073791.n5.nabble.com/Do-I-have-to-pay-for-the-final-TM-2-li... Sent from the textmate users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Guys, this is a really nice list please try and be respectful to others on it. I think Kafi has been a unfairly treated ... I won't name names but if you could find it in yourself to drop him an email -- off the list preferably -- to apologise I think that would be very responsible thing to do.
Kafi, I think what you're running into in your comments is a growing concern from parts of the software development community in this rapid "race to zero" where consumers price expectations keep on being lowered and a developers hard work and skills are often undervalued. This is shame and doesn't have to be an outcome of OpenSource movement but its a real sensitivity and when we're wearing our "consumer hat" I think we all should try and support people who are doing great things. The old adage "nothing is truly free" is an important word of warning, especially when you site examples like Chrome, Android, Open Office, and Java you're talking about efforts that are being supported with a lot money from corporate entities who in many cases are intentionally sabotaging competitors margins. This isn't a self-sustaining system but rather a system that is propped up by corporate interests and the costs to consumers *are* there they are just hidden.
Anyway, I will say I'm sorry by the way you were treated but also that I understand some of the poorly expressed sentiment. I for one think what Allan has produced is outstanding and I will be paying for it even if I don't have to.
Ken
On 18 July 2013 20:35, kafi kkaaffii@gmail.com wrote:
Chris Knight wrote
Why should anyone write software and give it away for you to use for
free?
Go to the project website of Android, Open Office, GIMP, Chrome, Truecrypt, 7Zip, Apache web server, Java, etc. and read why these softwares are free to use. Maybe then you will learn about a great philosophy.
-- View this message in context: http://textmate.1073791.n5.nabble.com/Do-I-have-to-pay-for-the-final-TM-2-li... Sent from the textmate users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
textmate mailing list textmate@lists.macromates.com http://lists.macromates.com/listinfo/textmate
+1
I share your sentiment.
Ken Snyder wrote:
Guys, this is a really nice list please try and be respectful to others on it. I think Kafi has been a unfairly treated ... I won't name names but if you could find it in yourself to drop him an email -- off the list preferably -- to apologise I think that would be very responsible thing to do.
Kafi, I think what you're running into in your comments is a growing concern from parts of the software development community in this rapid "race to zero" where consumers price expectations keep on being lowered and a developers hard work and skills are often undervalued. This is shame and doesn't have to be an outcome of OpenSource movement but its a real sensitivity and when we're wearing our "consumer hat" I think we all should try and support people who are doing great things. The old adage "nothing is truly free" is an important word of warning, especially when you site examples like Chrome, Android, Open Office, and Java you're talking about efforts that are being supported with a lot money from corporate entities who in many cases are intentionally sabotaging competitors margins. This isn't a self-sustaining system but rather a system that is propped up by corporate interests and the costs to consumers /are/ there they are just hidden.
Anyway, I will say I'm sorry by the way you were treated but also that I understand some of the poorly expressed sentiment. I for one think what Allan has produced is outstanding and I will be paying for it even if I don't have to.
Ken
On 18 July 2013 20:35, kafi <kkaaffii@gmail.com mailto:kkaaffii@gmail.com> wrote:
Chris Knight wrote > Why should anyone write software and give it away for you to use for free? Go to the project website of Android, Open Office, GIMP, Chrome, Truecrypt, 7Zip, Apache web server, Java, etc. and read why these softwares are free to use. Maybe then you will learn about a great philosophy. -- View this message in context: http://textmate.1073791.n5.nabble.com/Do-I-have-to-pay-for-the-final-TM-2-license-key-tp26689p26707.html Sent from the textmate users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ textmate mailing list textmate@lists.macromates.com <mailto:textmate@lists.macromates.com> http://lists.macromates.com/listinfo/textmate
textmate mailing list textmate@lists.macromates.com http://lists.macromates.com/listinfo/textmate
Ken Snyder wrote
I for one think what Allan has produced is outstanding and I will be paying for it even if I don't have to. Ken
Okay. Since you are more than willing to pay for an open source project (even if there were a free option), could you please send me one license by email (according to many comments posted here its really cheap) !!!
I reckon it would be a great gesture of contribution to this TM2 project and also an act of philanthropy. What do you think?
-- View this message in context: http://textmate.1073791.n5.nabble.com/Do-I-have-to-pay-for-the-final-TM-2-li... Sent from the textmate users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On Jul 18, 2013, at 16:13, kafi kkaaffii@gmail.com wrote:
Since TM 2 is Open Sourced, so why we (unregistered non-commercial users) need to pay for the license keys?
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
[…] It seems to me that the Open Source tag is a ploy to 'attract' developers, however, keeping the revenue to the owner himself.
Some of my thoughts and motivation is mentioned in this interview http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/08/odgaard-i-will-continue-working-on-text... and making money off of other people’s work was not among them.
I have actually considered what could be a suitable compensation system for contributors, though so far I’m still doing majority of the work, and no money are really being made.
-
Allan Odgaard -
Bob Hartung -
Cao Ben -
Chris Knight -
Dustin Wheeler -
Geoff Meakin -
Jason McC. Smith -
Jean-Baptiste Karageuzian -
João Mesquita -
kafi -
Ken Snyder -
Leo Brewin -
Marc Chanliau -
Matthias -
Melton Low (app) -
Tuan Anh Tran -
Walter Lee Davis -
William Pickens